Karnataka High Court
Ms.Sindhu A.S vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
WRIT PETITION NO.17829 OF 2022( S-KSAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.17840/2022 (S-KSAT)
In W.P.No.17829/2022
BETWEEN:
1. MS.SINDHU A.S.
W/O MR. SUDHEENDRA
R/AT SRI. NIKETHANA 2nd MAIN,
HEMAVATHINAGARA,
HASSAN
ALUR, HASSAN,
KARNATAKA 573 201
2. SMT. KAVYASHREE
W/O MR. SATHISH M.B
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT G -290
3RD MAIN , 7TH CROSS,
HAL OLD TOWNSHIP
VIMANAPURA POST,
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA 560017
3. SMT. TANUJA G
W/O MR. PRABHAKARA N
2
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT 48/1, SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA,
GROUND FLOOR 21ST CROSS,
B.S.K 3RD STAGE,
ITTAMADU,
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA 560085
4. SMT. ASHA ABHINETHRI,
W/O. MR.NARASIMHA MURTHY D.R.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/A # 48, MIG 1ST, 2ND STAGE,
UDAYAGIRI EXTENSION,
KUVEMPU NAGAR,
HASSAN - 573201
5. SMT. PAVITHRA B.A.
W/O. MR. VINOD S
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/A. # 20, SINGH COMPLEX,
9TH MAIN, DEVI CIRCLE,
JELLY MACHINE,
CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE,
KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560097
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KRISHNA S.VYAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF SKILL
DEVELOPMENT AND LIVELIHOOD
3RD FLOOR, ROOM NO.306,
M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560001
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
3
AND TRAINING
KAUSHALYA BHAVAN,
DAIRY CIRCLE,
BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
HOMBEGOWDA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560029
3. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
UDYOG SOUDA, DEVARAJ URS ROAD
NEAR VIDHANA SOUDHA,
OPPOSITE TO AG & CID OFFICE
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560001
5. SMT. SHAILA Y.M.
W/O. MR. MADAN D.V.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/A. 1ST STAGE, 2ND CROSS
SANGAMEHSWARA EXTN.
HASSAN,
HASSAN, ALUR, HASSAN
KARNATAKA - 573201
6. SMT. ROOPA H.M.
W/O. MR. MOHAN KUMAR B.D.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/A. #483/3, 1ST CROSS
ADUVALLY HASSAN,
KARNATAKA - 573 201
7. SMT. ROOPA
W/O. MR.SHANTHA KUMARA D
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT. DAIRY CIRCLE,
NEAR BRIGADE DOWN,
4
HASSAN,
KARNATAKA - 573201 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4;
SRI.BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADV., FOR R3 )
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 04.01.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KSAT IN
A.NO.1941 TO 1948/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE SAID A.NO.1941 TO 1948/2021 PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONERS AS SOUGHT FOR IN ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT THE
PRAYERS MADE THERE UNDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN W.P.No.17840/2022
BETWEEN
1. SMT. RAMYA C.K.
W/O. MR.BHARATH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/A. WARD NO.12,
BEHIND H.S.PRAKASH HOUSE,
HEMAVATHI NAGAR,
VIDHYANAGAR,
ALUR, HASSAN:573202
2. SMT. NUSRATH PARVEEN S.
W/O. MR.NAVEED UL HAQ
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/A. # 35, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
BEHIND BINNY MILLS,
GANGANAGAR EXTENSION,
BANGALORE - 560032 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KRISHNA S.VYAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND
5
LIVELIHOOD,
3RD FLOOR, ROOM NO.306,
M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560001
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING,
KAUSHALYA BHAVAN, DAIRY CIRCLE,
BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
HOMBEGOWDA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560029
3. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
UDYOG SOUDA, DEVARAJ URS ROAD,
NEAR VIDHANA SOUDHA,
OPPOSITE TO AG & CID OFFICE,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560001 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4;
SRI.BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADV., FOR R3)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 04.01.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KSAT IN
A.NO.1949 TO 1950/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE SAID A.NO.1949 TO 1950/2021 PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONERS AS SOUGHT FOR IN ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT THE
PRAYERS MADE THERE UNDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, P.N DESAI J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
6
ORDER
Writ petition No.17829/2022 and writ petition No.17840/2022 are filed challenging the order dated 04.01.2022 passed in Application Nos.1941- 1948/2021 and Application Nos.1949-1950/2021 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short hereinafter referred to as KSAT).
W.P.No.17829/2022
2. The brief case of the petitioners in this petition is that the petitioners are the prospective candidates to the post of Junior Training Officer (JTO) in the field of Dress making. The 3rd Respondent Department issued notification bearing No.R(2) 3567/17-18/PSC, dated 19.02.2018 and called for applications by prospective candidates to the post of Junior Training Officer in different fields including Dress Making. The required qualification for selection to the post of dress making is fixed as 3 years diploma in Dress Making/Garment Fabric 7 Technology, Costume Designing from recognized board of technical education and in addition to the said educational qualification a prospective candidate is also expected to have two years of teaching experience in any technical training institute in the respective field as per Annexure-A1.
3. The applicants submitted their application along with documents of educational qualification. The petitioners have obtained qualification in Diploma in Apparel Design and Fabrication Technology (AD & FT) by recognized Board of Technical Education. The said course is in vogue after replacement of the earlier course in the nomenclature of Costume Designing and Dress Making (CD & DM). The syllabus for both Diploma in Costume Designing and Dress making and the latest syllabus in Diploma in Apparel Design and Fabrication Technology are the same. It is contended that the syllabus for 8 diploma in AD & FT is more complex and substantive/sophisticated when compared to the course syllabus prescribed for Diploma in Costume Designing and Dress Making (CD & DM). Infact, the earlier course has been renamed as Diploma in AD & FT. But the course undergone by the petitioners and the course as prescribed in the notification at Annexure-A1 are the same. Further the third respondent/Department vide its publication of status, after verifying the documents submitted by the petitioners, concluded that there is no eligible candidate available for selection to the said post. Aggrieved by the publication of the status at Annexures- A37 and A38, the petitioners have submitted their representation to the second and third respondents department and sought to consider their candidature in view of the fact that, certification in the course of nomenclature prescribed in the notification is impossible, owing to the fact that no such course of such style is in 9 existence as on date. But their request was rejected. On the other hand, the notification dated 22.09.2020 pertaining to lateral entry from a candidate who have successfully completed ITI to the Diploma course has been published by the Department of Colligate and Technical Education at Bengaluru. The said lateral entry pertains to the course to which the petitioners are proposed to be recruited as teaching staff. Some of the petitioners were also appointed as examiner in the trade of Dress Making under Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) and Craftsmen Training Scheme (CTS), for All India Trade Test. The said petitioners have the same qualification and are eligible to be appointed as examiners to the trade of Dress Making. Therefore, challenging the selection to the post of JTO (Dress making), the petitioners have preferred their application before KSAT. The KSAT dismissed the applications. Hence, these petitions have been filed.
10W.P.No.17840/2022
4. The petitioners in this petition are also prospective candidates to the post of Junior Training Officer (JTO) in the field of Secretarial Practice. It is submitted that the third respondent/KPSC through its notification bearing No.R(2)-3567/17-18/PSC, dated 19.02.2018 had called for appointment of prospective candidates to the post of Junior Training Officer in different fields including Secretarial Practice. It is stated in the notification that the candidates should have completed three years Diploma (AICTE approved in relevant field from recognized board of technical education) and in addition to the same, they should have two years of teaching experience in technical training institute. The petitioners have submitted their applications. They were called for document verification. Further, it is contended that the petitioners have completed their Diploma in Commercial Practice and the 11 said course is in vogue after replacement of the earlier course in the nomenclature of Secretarial Practice and syllabus for both Diploma in Secretarial Practice and Commercial Practice are the same. In the interregnum, KPSC has published status report dated 20.01.2021, from which it is made clear that after consideration of the documents submitted by the aspirants to the post of Junior Training Officer (JTO) (Secretarial Practice) no candidate is available. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have submitted representations. After considering the representations, the Commissioner for Colligate and Technical Education (Respondent No.4) clarified the third respondent/KPSC that Diploma in Commercial Practice and Secretarial Practice are equivalent course but the nomenclature has been changed and thereby respondent No.4 recommended to consider the candidature of petitioners and others who have requisite qualification. Despite the same, the 12 respondent No.3 did not take any steps. But again issued another status report without considering the representations or communications issued by fourth respondent and first respondent. Being aggrieved petitioners preferred application before KSAT, in turn the KSAT dismissed the application. Hence, they are before this Court.
5. Heard Sri.Krishna S.Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. H.R.Showri, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Sri. Basavaraj Godachi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in both the petitions.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no difference between the course AD & FT and course CD & DM likewise, Commercial Practice and Secretarial Practice. The discriminatory condition of getting a qualification in the name and style which is not 13 in existence, which condition is a condition of impossibility and which does not form a qualified standard of gradation, is arbitrary and therefore, unsustainable. Infact, the Cadre and Recruitment Rules applicable to Karnataka Employment and Training Service (Dress Making training) (Recruitment) Rules and also to the Karnataka Employment and Training Service (Secretarial Practice Training) (Recruitment) Rules, both published in the year 1998. Though no such superfluous condition is contained in the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, whereas even for the sake of argument if the same is taken to be true, the said rules having become outdated and inapplicable, a draft of new set of rules is available and the same has not been adopted. So this has resulted in injustice to the petitioners. With these contentions, prayed to allow the petition. 14
7. Learned Government Advocate would concede that the said qualification by the petitioners is equivalent to the earlier course of CD & DM is also not in dispute. Practically the said CD & DM is in vogue and are renamed as AD & FT and also in respect of course of Commercial Practice and Secretarial Practice.
8. We have perused the order of the tribunal and records.
9. The tribunal observed regarding the experience certificate to be issued by the Engineering Industry licensed under the Indian Factories Act, 1948 which is not actually correct. The tribunal in both the applications preferred by the petitioners has misunderstood the concept and relied on the decision in the case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade & others passed in Civil Appeal No.4597/2019 whereby it is held that "the 15 Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility or much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications and also questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review, if the language of the advertisement and rules are clear the court cannot sit on judgment over the same." As per notification, none of the applicants are eligible. Further the applicants have strongly contended in their grounds that the conditions imposed in the advertisement are discriminatory condition of getting an experience certificate from the entity registered under the Factories Act, 1948 which condition is a contingency of impossibility and which does not form a qualified standard of gradation is unsustainable.
10. The tribunal relying on the judgment in the case of Secretary, AP Public Service Commission Vs. Swapna and others - (2005) 4 SCC 154 has given a 16 finding that KPSC is only a selection authority constituted under the Constitution of India by the State Government. Any relaxation shall be done by the State Government and not by KPSC and further it is also rendered a finding that the qualification not so recognized as equivalent to prescribed qualification in such Rules/Government orders, cannot be considered as equivalent after commencement of the selection process. Therefore, while the selection process is in progress, the applicants could not have approached the Tribunal questioning the rejection of their candidature and tribunal has also observed that once the applicants having participated in selection process, they are bound by decision of appointing authority as to equivalence/non-equivalence of prescribed requirement with qualification possessed by them and has concluded in dismissing the applications.
17
11. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the instant cases the qualifications possessed by the petitioners are the same and also the entire syllabus as prescribed for AD&FT and CD&DM and Commercial Practice and Secretarial Practice are the same syllabus studied by the petitioners in their respective degree/diploma courses. The only the titles/ nomenclature of the syllabus are changed.
12. As per Annexures - A21 and A36 dated 15.02.2021 produced in both the petitions respectively issued by Technical Education Department, Bengaluru, it is evident that the syllabus for 'AD&FT and CD&DM' and 'Commercial Practice and Secretarial Practice' are same course and only the title of the Courses have been changed the relevant portion of the same which is in Kannada language reads as under:
18
"F «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß vÀªÀÄä DzÀå UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
1) vÁAwæPÀ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è F »AzÉ DIPLOMA IN SECRETARIAL PRACTICE JA§ r¥ÉÆèêÀiÁ PÉÆøÀð£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ OzÉÆåÃVPÀ PÉëÃvÀæzÀ°è PÀAqÀħgÀĪÀ ¨ÉÃrPɬÄAzÀ, ¥ÀoåÀ Pæª À ÄÀ zÀ°è PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ vÀPÀÌAvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀzÀj PÉÆøïðUÀ¼À mÉÊl®UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß DIPLOMA IN COMMERCIAL PRACTICE ºÁUÀÆ DIPLOMA IN MODERN OFFICE PRACTICE JAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀÄ£ÁªÀÄPÀgÀt ªÀiÁr r¥ÉÆèêÀiÁ ¥ÀzÀ« ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¥Àæ¸ÄÀ ÛvÀ DIPLOMA IN COMMERCIAL PRACTICE JAzÀÄ r¥ÉÆèêÀiÁ ¥ÀzÀ« ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. F J¯Áè PÉÆøïðUÀ¼ÄÀ MAzÉà DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
2) vÁAwæPÀ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è F »AzÉ DIPLOMA IN CASTUME DESIGN AND DRESS MAKING JA§ PÉÆøïð£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ OzÉÆåÃVPÀ PÉëÃvÀæzÀ°è PÀAqÀħAzÀ ¨ÉÃrPɬÄAzÀ, ¥ÀoåÀ Pæª À ÄÀ zÀ°è PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ vÀPÀÌAvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr DIPLOMA IN APPAREL DESIGN AND FABRICATION TECHNOLOGY JAzÀÄ r¥ÉÆèêÀiÁ ¥ÀzÀ« ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¥Àæ¸ÄÀ ÛvÀ DIPLOMA IN APPAREL DESIGN AND FABRICATION TECHNOLOGY JAzÀÄ r¥ÉÆèêÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ« ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. EgÀqÄÀ PÉÆøïðUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÉà DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ F JgÀqÄÀ UÀ½UÉ vÁAwæPÀ ¥ÀjÃPÁë ªÀÄAqÀ½¬ÄAzÀ DIPLOMA IN COMMERCIAL PRACTICE ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DIPLOMA IN 19 APPAREL DESIGN AND FABRICATION TECHNOLOGY r¥ÉÆèêÀiÁ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀzÀÄÝ, CAvÀºÀ C¨såÀ yðUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
"n¥Àt ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛjAzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆâ¸À®ànÖzÉ".
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(CDC) vÁAwPÀ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ CgÀªÀÄ£É gÀ¸ÉÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560001.
13. Therefore, it is evident from the said Annexure that, in view of demand from educational and industrial field, the syllabus is also changed from time to time and the title of courses are renamed as stated above. It is also stated that in case, if the candidates who have passed Diploma in commercial practice and diploma in Apparel Design & Fabrication Technology, shall be considered for appointment. The said note is approved by the Commissioner of Technical Education, Bengaluru. The respondents without considering the contentions of the petitioners that the qualification prescribed in respect 20 of the courses have undergone a change in view of the demand and need of the education and industrial field. The syllabus is not changed. The said degrees are only renamed and the nomenclature is changed as stated above. The qualification prescribed in the notification is no more in existence and is outdated. Though, a new draft rules are already prepared, replacing the said nomenclatures, but the same was not considered. This has resulted in injustice to the petitioners. The Tribunal has not appreciated the factual situation and it has resulted in dismissing the applications erroneously.
14. It would be suffice to say that a candidate who can provide conclusive evidence that he/she has educational qualification or experience at least equal to what is required by the minimum qualification deserves careful consideration, even if the nomenclature of 21 degrees or titles are different from those prescribed in the eligibility list.
15. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioners diplomas in CD&DM and Secretarial Practice are equivalent to those prescribed by the employment notifications and the equivalency orders are merely clarificatory in nature. It is crystal clear that the petitioners are having requisite qualifications to consider their candidature for the said post as clarified by the Commissioner of Technical Education Department. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal being illegal, erroneous, needs to be set aside. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Consequently, both the writ petitions are allowed.22
(ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as in the light of observations made hereinabove.
(iii) There is no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE HJ